Dating Mark in 115 CE

[John2]

... orthodoxy didn't exist in Eusebius' time.

I meant little 'o' "orthodox," to which I would broadly include proto-orthodox Christians prior to the time of Eusebius (going back as far as, say, whoever wrote Luke/Acts -or Luke and Acts, if they were written by different people). But whatever you call it or whenever you date its emergence, I see Eusebius as being more or less part of this "orthodox" version of Christianity and he was at least willing -however begrudgingly- to more or less go along with it in the big "O" sense too, which I define as "more or less going along with the Nicene Creed."

During the Arian controversy he [Eusebius] supported Arius and was condemned by the Council of Antioch (324/5). At the Council of Nicaea he was reinstated by the Emp. Constantine when he produced the baptismal creed of Caesarea as evidence of his orthodoxy. But (despite what Eusebius says) this creed cannot have formed the basis of the Nicene Creed, which Eusebius ultimately accepted.

http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts/0335_eu ... _start.htm

The Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and of Constantinople in 381 AD (1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils), has been recognised since then as the authoritative expression of the fundamental beliefs of the Orthodox Church. The Creed is often referred to as the "Symbol of Faith". This description indicates that the Creed is not an analytical statement, but that it points to a reality greater than itself and to which it bears witness. For generations the Creed has been the criterion of authentic Faith and the basis of Christian education. The Creed is recited at the time of Baptism, during every Divine Liturgy, and as part of the daily prayers of the Orthodox Christian.

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Creed.htm

So I think whether you call it little "o" orthodox or big 'O' orthodox, Eusebius was an orthodox Christian, even when he was an Arian prior to begrudgingly going along with the Nicene Creed, since in my view Arianism is a kind of little 'o' orthodox Christianity (one that happened to fall out of fashion, but still), as noted on the Wikipedia page for Arianism:

The teachings of Arius and his supporters were opposed to the theological views held by Homoousian Christians, regarding the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The Arian concept of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father ...

There was a dispute between two interpretations of Jesus' divinity (Homoousianism and Arianism) based upon the theological orthodoxy of the time, one trinitarian and the other non-trinitarian, and both of them attempted to solve its respective theological dilemmas. So there were, initially, two equally orthodox interpretations which initiated a conflict in order to attract adepts and define the new orthodoxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[Ben C. Smith]

Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.

... outright invention? I would have to see the argument.

The 'Testimonium' Flavianum. The Bishops Lists. Possibly Hegesippus or aspects of 'him' ...

These are list items, not arguments.

I noted the Testimonium in my ETA note. The bishop lists which we are able to check come from sources such as Irenaeus; how do we know that the ones we are not able to check come from Eusebius? And it is possible to trace fragments of Hegesippus in other authors, such as Epiphanius; I grant that the name of Hegesippus may be a fabrication, but it would be one made within the confines of the work having been confused with Josephus in Alexandria: more of an elaboration or educated guess than an invention.

Hegesippus is actually a pretty good test case for this exercise, IMHO: Eusebius gives his own reasons for thinking that Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian, but does not actually quote anything in Hegesippus that would actually imply that. It is easier for me to believe, then, that Eusebius is reading and (mis)interpreting an actual text than that he is making something up and then failing to give any real support for it. Also, lots of things fall into place when one acknowledges that Irenaeus had access to Hegesippus long before Eusebius, who provides the very information from Hegesippus which can be used to disprove Eusebius' own dating of Hegesippus! I do not at all think that Eusebius made up Hegesippus, or anything substantial about him.

[Ben C. Smith]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

[John2]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

And I think it's an apt cliché.

[Ben C. Smith]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

And I think it's an apt cliché.

It was profligate and you know it.

[MrMacSon]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

Sure, I'm being flippant and offhand, and arrogant. But the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

[John2]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

Sure, I'm being flippant and offhand, and arrogant. But the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

Well, the way I look at it is you can lead a horse to water (in this case Eusebius) but you can't make them drink it.

[Ben C. Smith]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

That's mostly all you've got - cliches ...

Come now. You are better than this. I do not wish to support the profligate use of clichés, but attack the idea, not the cliché used to convey it.

Sure, I'm being flippant and offhand, and arrogant. But the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

What does "saucy" mean in this context?

[John2]

I like the way Maier puts the situation in his translation of Eusebius' Church History:

... it is most fortunate that Eusebius did quote his sources extensively, since many of them would have been lost and would not have survived, even in fragments, had Eusebius not incorporated them into his history. This is not true for Josephus, whom we have virtually intact, or for some of the works of the two Clements, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, or Tertullian. But it is true for the important testimony of Papias, Quadratus, Melito, Hegesippus, Rhodo, Apollinarius, and other early authors, as well as for important edicts and documents that would otherwise have been lost.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LIgMF ... es&f=false

[MrMacSon]

... the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

What does "saucy" mean in this context?

Added 'flavour'; and it's not always clear what all the ingredients might be and where they're from, or in what quantities (depending on the sauce's source, of course) [and it was a bit of poetic licence).